Structured Discussions/Deprecation/Report

Tracked in Phabricator
Task T346108

Flow deprecation community conversations report | January 2024

Summary

The work on Temporary accounts revealed an opportunity to reduce the technical debt by sunsetting StructuredDiscussion/Flow and LiquidThreads. These features were officially abandoned years ago, and have a huge maintenance cost in production. A few communities use these features, the main pages using Flow being dedicated to interactions with newcomers (dedicated community help desks or mentors’ talk pages).

31 discussions were started by Benoît Evellin, Community Relations specialist on the Movement Communication team. More than half of the conversations got answers, from more than 50 different users in total.

An agreement was reached to sunset these features. A few users were reticent on sunsetting these features but they understand the need to reduce the induced cost of maintaining them.

The next steps would be:

• Assist communities in preparing their discussions using Flow or LiquidThreads to be converted.
• Add some popular Flow features to DiscussionTools, or improve existing DT features, to keep the user experience close to the existing one.
• Convert all contents to wikitext, and include these converted contents to the existing talk pages infrastructure.

Context

The Growth Team team is currently listed as the maintainer of Flow and Liquid Threads, but it's considered one of their passively maintained projects, so it receives little attention. Additionally, these two discussion systems aren’t used much, apart from by a few communities, and they regularly create a significant number of production errors.

We will need to either make updates to Flow or move users away from using Flow to meet IP Masking requirements: T342831: IP Masking: Update StructuredDiscussions (Flow). Temporary accounts for unregistered editors will be a new type of user account, which requires adapting Flow to this new user type. The cost of adaptation has not been considered as a reasonable one.

The Growth team, along with Product teams' leaders, wants to limit engineering investment in Flow because we hope to move away from long-term support of Flow: T332022: [Epic] Undeploying StructuredDiscussions (Flow).

The same applies to Liquid Threads, used at only 6 wikis with almost zero posts per day and no proper maintenance since 2011. (T345484#9164331)

Two options for the work on Temporary accounts were considered for these extensions: adapting them, or sunsetting them. However, adapting was considered too costly. Consequently, the Community Relations Specialist advised offering only the solution of sunsetting Flow and LiquidThreads. It was also motivated by the opportunity to stop a significant number of production errors caused by these two extensions and to reduce the technical debt we have to deal with.

Communities using Flow and LiquidThreads have been contacted to inform them of the next steps, as well as to gather their questions and remarks on the decision. What users consider as missing features in DiscussionTools – Flow’s and LQT’s replacement – were also collected.

The outreach and communication to these communities was led and carried out by Benoît Evellin, Community Relations Specialist on the Movement Communications team, between November 23 and December 21, 2024.

Usages of the tools

We identified four usages of Flow. These usages can intersect within a community.

• Flow is used as the default communication tool on wiki.
  • In this case, all talk pages use Flow as the discussion system on wiki
• Flow is used on some community pages, sometimes to help newcomers discuss.
  • We are in the case where Flow was selected – before 2019 – as the best tool for discussions, as it helps newcomers to have a discussion experience similar to what they have on other websites.
• Flow used on individual’s talk pages. Use cases:
  • Mentors: users who turned the Beta feature on so that newcomers have a better experience than what were talk pages.
  • Casual users:  individuals who turned the Beta feature on and still edit.
  • Gone users: individuals who turned the Beta feature on, but don’t edit anymore.
• Flow is installed, but no page uses Flow.
  • We haven’t contacted these wikis. A simple maintenance task is performed to remove Flow from these wikis, with a short announcement in Tech News.

For LiquidThreads, six wikis use it, but not actively: most pages are abandoned. In the past, several communities using LiquidThreads have asked for it to be removed as they were not using it anymore.

Information provided

The conversation was used to make communities aware of the challenges Flow and LQT cause, both for the IP masking project, and also in general. We give them the choice to autonomously archive their pages, or benefit from our assistance to do it.

We also informed them of:

• The difficulties of upgrading Flow to support temp accounts
• The difficulties of maintaining Flow, overall
• Flow’s upcoming decommission – the short-term objective is archiving and locking of existing Flow/LQT pages.
• The existence of DiscussionTools as a valid replacement for Flow, as the same features are offered.

We listen to their questions and concerns regarding our plan:

• The short-term need of stopping the usage of pages using Flow or LQT, by archiving and locking them so that IPs/Temp accounts can use them.
• The mid-term need for the Growth team to know communities’ needs and concerns regarding the long-term goal of decommissioning these tools.
• The long-term decommission itself, through a process and a goal; both will be defined by product teams based on user feedback.

Communication goals regarding Flow

Communities feel that they have all options in hand, but would follow the WMF's preferred solution given the difficulties Flow creates: the best choice is to archive Flow boards.

Our goal was to reach the minimum agreement of each community on archiving Flow pages. Optionally, in the best-case scenario, they proactively archive Flow boards on a volunteer basis.

We were also asking which solution would be the best regarding Flow page contents. The idea of converting Flow contents to wikitext pages was previously considered by WMF teams (T96301); we haven’t pushed that option in the first questions, but we suggested it when the discussions were stalled.

We are also listening to any other feedback regarding talk pages.

Questions asked:

1. Are the reasons given for archiving structured discussions clear?
2. Are the two next steps – archiving and then uninstalling structured discussions – clear?
3. If so, what is a reasonable timeframe for archiving pages for deinstallation? At present, deinstallation is not planned on our side (even if the second quarter of 2024 is mentioned), as we are waiting for the end of these conversations, which take place on multiple wikis.
4. In your opinion, what format should pages currently using SDs be converted to when we proceed with the deinstallation of structured discussions?

Possible community concerns we identified

Regarding possible concerns, we identified the following cases:

• French Wikipedia’s Forum des nouveaux (newcomers’ board) is the largest board by far. Switching it, with all ongoing conversations, has to be done through careful planning.
• Some users believe that Flow is a better experience for newcomers, as each topic is a separate page, which allows newcomers to return anytime to a previous conversation.  DiscussionTools now allow permalinks, that could cover the problem.
• Some communities are already okay to remove Flow, but only from certain namespaces/pages (example)

Discussions

The discussions happened on wikis in December 2023.

Wikis and users

26 discussions were started at the different wikis where Flow is actively used.

Targeted wikis were: French Wikipedia, Wikidata, Catalan Wikipedia, Arabic Wikipedia, French Wikisource, Hebrew Wikipedia, Greek Wikipedia, Portuguese Wikipedia, Wikispeces, Chinese Wikipedia, Chinese Wikisource, Farsi Wikipedia, Mediawiki wiki, Polish Wikipedia, Canalan Wikiquote, French Wikiversity, Norsk Wikipedia, and Ordu Wikipedia.

We had a particular focus on Mediawiki, where Flow was used for years as the default discussion system, and at French Wikipedia, where Flow is used on the Forum des nouveaux (newcomers’ board), with the largest traffic.

52 different users, from 10 communities responded. Responses are often similar at the same wiki, as users influence each other.

It is not possible to provide significant statistics regarding engagement, as the numbers aren't significant enough compared to their respective communities' sizes. We never engage with 100% of the communities; for a niche topic like Flow, we can consider 50 respondents over 10 wikis to be a good number.

LiquidThreads is used at 5 wikis. 5 discussions where started, with 3 users participating.

Outcomes

Overall support

We had a majority of users in favor of removing Flow, and no pushback.

For some of them, it was obvious, as they never liked the tool (5 mentions). However, some others prefer Flow over classical talk pages (5): while they understand the need to deprecate Flow change, they will regret it. We had no pushback, no veto.

5 users consider Flow as easier to use for their personal use. 5 different users prefer Flow as they find it is easier to use for newcomers. All feedback (but one) comes from users from the French communities we contacted (Wikipedia and Wikisource); both have a strong commitment in helping newcomers.

One user questioned our commitment to do the conversion, as we never finished working on Flow to start with.

For LQT, all users were in favor, all noting that their communities were not using it anymore.

Flow has strengths that should be kept

Some users made comments regarding what they consider as benefits of Flow. In some cases, DiscussionTools provide these features, but they are apparently unknown.

Flow is easier to use for newcomers. This was conveyed through a few direct feedback, with no details: “Structured discussions are much easier for novices and facilitate exchanges.” Some users provided some details related to this. One user considers topic creation easier on Flow.

Flow allows better topics/messages separation, making it easier to understand who wrote what. The blank space between messages, controversial to some users, is considered as one of Flow’s strengths by others. In particular, it is considered by 3 reticent users as a benefit for newcomers, who are more accustomed to this type of design.

Each conversation on Flow is a separate page. A newcomer returning to a conversation after a few days or months of absence will be able to find the discussion. It was not true on classical talk pages during the time of the conversation: topics moved to different pages created broken links. However, the deployment of DiscussionTools' permalinks in late January 2024 solved this issue.

Each message on Flow has a clear identification (username) at the beginning of each message. Also, one user points-out that there is a visible “thank” link below each message, increasing social interactions.  

Two users like the possibility of categorizing, summarizing and closing topics as a feature, not relying on templates. This is used for request pages, where triaging the messages is needed.  Moving back to a community-maintained templates-based system is perceived as a regression.

Subscribing to a Flow board sends you a notification for each new topic created. This is already possible with DiscussionTools, but users aren’t aware of it as the link is “not visible at all”.

Flow has an endless loading page, which allows users to simply ignore any form of archiving. The lack of searching options and the total absence of indexation in the existing search experience were downsides of Flow. However, this is solved with DiscussionTools' permalinks, which allows users to find any comment if they have the link to it.

Flow allows permalinking. DiscussionTools allow this too, by clicking on the comment’s timestamp. However, this feature wasn’t deployed when the discussions were conducted.

Beyond DiscussionTools benefits, ConvenientDiscussion (CD), a community-built gadget, was highlighted by several experienced users as what DiscussionTools should be. It was even suggested to use ConvenientDiscussions as the default tool, which is not possible due to language compatibility and performance issues.

Archiving pages started but needs assistance

During the conversations, we encouraged wikis to start archiving the Flow boards, by moving them to sub-pages. The goal was to see the traffic on these pages decrease to a point where no new topics would be created there. When the time to convert all contents comes, these pages would not get any conflicts with users editing at the time of the conversion.

The response varied from wiki to wiki, with individuals turning the feature off in their personal preferences. Chinese Wikipedia messaged Flow users to invite them to participate in the conversation, and turn Flow off. Wikidata’s French board was successfully archived.

However, for the biggest boards (at French Wikipedia and Mediawikiwiki), the archiving hasn’t been conducted. These pages will require a specific community engagement, to accompany communities in moving their contents and process from Flow boards to default talk pages. At French Wikipedia, as the main Flow boards are dedicated to newcomers, the idea of making standard talk pages easier for newcomers came up as well (see listed possible improvements below).

French Wikipedia’s Forum des nouveaux, the biggest Flow board in the wikiverse, was an identified possible place of pushback. While the main hosts of this Forum were not enthusiastic about archiving, given the amount of work it would require, they understood the need of sunsetting Flow. They will need our assistance.

For LQT, the majority of wikis were not using it anymore. A few users still use it at English Wiktionary, and they are encouraged by their community to stop using it.

Archiving to wikitext is the preferred option

All users asked to convert the contents to wikitext, a format anyone – including bots – can edit.

Regarding how the archives should be organized, several options were provided, depending on the context.

• Each topic remains a sub-page of the talk page they are attached to, all topics are transcluded on their parent talk page.
• Topics are converted as sections on a talk page, and that talk page becomes one, unique page
  • Bigger pages are split by year, month, week… depending on their size.

A few users pointed out that Flow's comment history should be converted to regular page history, to have one unique format. One asked to have each edit within a given comment converted. A few other users, aware of the unique format of Flow, are ready to have a less precise format, as long as the contents are wikitext-based.

This entire section would need clarification with the communities for the timing of when the contents will be converted.

Keeping links working

Flow has this specific format: each topic is hosted under a specific namespace, outside of the Talk pages namespaces. Each topic is one "page", starting with the prefix Topic:.

It is possible to create links to a given topic but also to link to a given comment within this topic. These links have been used a lot on all wikis, to connect all other pages to Flow contents. Keeping these links was mentioned by 7 users across 4 wikis, to keep the continuity of discussions.

Recommendations

Assist the archiving work before content conversion

Communities will need to be reminded, and possibly be assisted, before the conversion. We have to be prepared to set a deadline and probably do the archiving ourselves. Community engagement will be important in this area.

Provide multiple options regarding how converted contents will be structured.

This aspect hasn’t been solved during this initial conversation. We will have to ask users about their preferences.

Given the diversity of on-wiki practices or pages to-be-converted length, we will certainly have to provide conversion options, so that communities can select the format they prefer for each page. A default setting would be set for the remaining pages.  

There is an overall consensus that any Topic: link should become a permalink.

Consider product improvements on DiscussionTools

The main concern of users who participated in the discussion was around newcomers using talk pages.

Some users have a perception that newcomers prefer Flow over DiscussionTools, due to its unique design. Flow is considered as more aligned with the user experiences you can find on other websites. As it is a perception, we would have to confirm if the DiscussionTools, along with Usability improvements, are adapted to newcomers.

The goal is to reassure the communities, and, if some actionable improvements are identified, to ease newcomer’s experience on wikis. Also, these improvements are not limited to newcomers. If a new round of Usability improvements, focusing on newcomers, is scheduled, it would require extra involvement from the Editing team. Improving DiscussionTools to keep Flow’s strengths in it would be well perceived by users.

From the “Flow has strengths that should be kept” section, I recommend the following improvements on DiscussionTools:  

• Highlighting topic subscription on talk pages which exists but is quite non-visible. It had to be put forward by the Community Relation Specialist during the conversations. T356181

• Provide a way to thank a user directly from the reading mode. This will increase social interactions and, for users helping newcomers, it will also give them more recognition for their work. T249893

• Improve the design of talk pages, beyond Talk pages project Usability, by making it easier to understand the relation between threads and comments within a thread, and hence know who wrote what. The blank space between messages, controversial to some users, is considered as one of Flow’s strengths by others, in particular for newcomers. This feature should be a user preference. T282269, T255454

• Create a built-in way to categorize and summarize topics, and to move topics to an archive state. This will facilitate the administration of requests. This feature was present on Flow, as the initial plan was to replace request pages. At the moment, most wikis use templates to handle these requests. Often, these templates, by their design, prevent newcomers from participating in these discussions using DiscussionTools.